Russia Defence Forum

Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29382
    Points : 29910
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:07 am

    The T-72 was a numbers tank that was simple and reliable and carried a big gun with decent armour.
    It lacked super optics and night vision equipment, but it was made in enormous numbers and was clearly superior to the tanks it was replacing in service like old T-54/55 and T-62 models.

    It was designed to continue with further upgrades to remain useful, which the T-72 upgrades for their tank competitions shows... modern optics and new ERA and it is still a very good vehicle.

    The purpose of the T-90 was to replace the elite expensive tanks with the best new armour and ERA and the best new FCS and optics and equipment, so it costs more but it is also comparable to anything any other country might send against it.... it is the best the T-72 could get to.

    The Armata is a design revision for best protection of the crew and best potential for upgrades like a 152mm gun etc.
    avatar
    limb

    Posts : 206
    Points : 214
    Join date : 2020-09-17

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  limb Thu May 06, 2021 10:47 am

    lyle6 wrote:
    limb wrote:

    Implying separate ammo compartments with blowout panels don't work, when there is 0 evidence from both russians and westerners that they don't.

    And you're arguing from ignorance. I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure that a vessel designed to divert building internal pressure via alternate pathways would not properly work if there are holes aside from those said pathways. Instead the gases would leave through those holes as well, and if they lead to the crew compartment filled with exposed crewmembers and flammable hydraulic lines its game over. What part of this is so difficult to wrap your head around that you require explicit examples?

    Anyway I find it hilarious that Abrams fans always always mention that the blowout panels are the path of least resistance for the gas when it comes to explaining if and how they work, but ignore that in the case of a battle damage a gaping hole in the ammo doors would be that path of least resistance instead. Double-think much?

    I dont see you showing your mathematical and materials science evidence here.The claim that a tiny 1cm hole caused by an APFSDS will cause the destruction of the ammo compartment sounds like BS. Also the main killer is exploding HE rounds not burning propellant, and blowout panels are proven to work against them comparfed to a carousel full of HE rounds. Also your point is kind of moot since if an APFSDS penetrates the crew compartment from the front, it will shatter after penetrating and bounce around the compartment, killig the crew plus incinerating them if its DU. Blowout panels absolutely work for shots from the side and the crew of a western MBT are much better protected from dying from a cookoff if hit from the side.
    lyle6
    lyle6

    Posts : 584
    Points : 586
    Join date : 2020-09-14
    Location : Philippines

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  lyle6 Thu May 06, 2021 11:04 am

    limb wrote:

    I dont see you showing your mathematical and materials science  evidence here.The claim that a tiny 1cm  hole caused by an APFSDS will cause the destruction of the ammo compartment sounds like BS. Also the main killer is exploding HE rounds not burning propellant, and blowout panels are proven to work against  them comparfed to a carousel full of HE rounds. Also your point is kind of moot since if an APFSDS penetrates the crew compartment from the front, it will shatter after penetrating and bounce around the compartment, killig the crew plus incinerating them if its DU. Blowout panels absolutely work for shots from the side and the crew of a western MBT are much better protected from dying from a cookoff if hit from the side.

    Its only patently obvious to anyone who hasn't slept through high school physics. Will not explain further.
    GarryB
    GarryB

    Posts : 29382
    Points : 29910
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  GarryB Fri May 07, 2021 11:04 am

    Also the main killer is exploding HE rounds not burning propellant, and blowout panels are proven to work against them comparfed to a carousel full of HE rounds.

    There are lots of variations on what happens when a tank is hit and penetrated and it largely depends on a lot of things... where it hits and what is in the tank and where.

    The T-72 and other T series tanks got a bad reputation for exploding with their turrets blowing off when penetrated, and that was obviously because such vehicles only have half their ammo in their autoloader and the rest is inside the crew compartment in the turret and next to the driver.

    I would add that the Abrams and also most western tanks also have ammo in the crew compartments and when they were penetrated were just as vulnerable to being destroyed too.

    When there is no ammo outside the autoloader in a T-72 or T-90 then they didn't explode normally even when the turret or hull were penetrated.

    For the Soviet ammo it was worse because the propellent does not have a full length brass case, so hot sparks or flame or hot fragments landing on the rounds in the tank immediately set off the propellent, but turrets could be blown off the T-54 and T-55 and T-62, all of which used brass propellent cases.

    HE round generally only explode if hit directly... which is easier against the Abrams because the rounds are exposed in the turret bustle.

    Otherwise it takes a few minutes of the tank burning for the HE and HEAT rounds to cook off and explode... the crew would normally have already bailed before that happened.

    Also your point is kind of moot since if an APFSDS penetrates the crew compartment from the front, it will shatter after penetrating and bounce around the compartment, killig the crew plus incinerating them if its DU.

    Not really... APFSDS cores are design not to shatter... because shattering means they are no longer able to penetrate any useful amount of armour, so most of the time it will exit the other side of the vehicle spraying small fragments and pieces of armour but most tanks have an inner anti spall liner made of kevlar and nomex and similar materials and will also be wearing body armour also to protect them from fragments and hot material.

    Most of the time the incinerated crews were the ones that couldn't get out as the propellent burned...

    Blowout panels absolutely work for shots from the side and the crew of a western MBT are much better protected from dying from a cookoff if hit from the side.

    They are a catch 22 type situation... they essentially require that the ammo is in the turret rear exposed to enemy fire, which makes it vulnerable to being hit.

    As long as it remains a propellent fire it would allow the crew to escape the vehicle before the HE and HEAT rounds start exploding, but whether they save the crew or not that tank is going to burn out so tank down.

    Sponsored content

    T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants - Page 26 Empty Re: T-72 ΜΒΤ modernisation and variants

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Fri Jun 18, 2021 5:36 pm